Romney’s performance panned in swing states

Mitt Romney’s comments criticizing the Obama administration over the situation in Egypt based on faulty information drew a round of criticism from newspapers in swing states today. Here’s a sampling (full disclosure: the list was assembled by Americans United for Change, an Obama-friendly group funded by labor interests) :

“His handling of the Benghazi tragedy was shockingly inept. First, instead of sharing quietly in the grief of those who lost family, friends and colleagues in the firebombing of the U.S. Consulate, Mr. Romney tried to turn a day of American loss into a political opportunity. He accused President Barack Obama of apologizing to America’s adversaries and placating foreign extremists. That baseless criticism calls into question not only his judgment but also his sensitivity, sense of decency and even his humanity.”

American presidents don’t indulge in public tantrums during international crises. They don’t exploit the deaths of American servants in an attempt to score cheap political points. And they don’t accuse American diplomats of sympathizing with terrorists.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney did all of those things this week, in the midst of attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East, thus providing his opponents and voters with ample reason to question his ability and judgment in foreign affairs.

(snip)

It is Romney’s vile assertion that the White House “sympathizes with those who waged the attacks” – with terrorists – that is so far beyond the pale, so far beyond the bounds of American civil discourse that the Republican candidate should be ashamed of himself.

Mitt Romney’s response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, cast further doubt on the Republican presidential nominee’s ability to navigate sometimes roiling foreign policy seas.

Romney’s awkward and misleading attempt to score political points with the tragedy was a low point in a presidential campaign replete with them.

Romney’s unwillingness to let politics stop at the water’s edge was especially insensitive to the friends and families of the envoys who lost their lives protecting our values abroad. Our leaders should honor their sacrifices — not attempt to capitalize on them.

What is inexcusable, however, is that a sophisticated, well-educated man like Mitt Romney — a Mormon who has known the ugliness of religious intolerance — would to try to politicize this tragedy. His vile charge Tuesday night that the Obama administration had “sympathized” with the embassy attackers was not only untrue, but violated the cardinal rule that in times of foreign strife, politics stops at the water’s edge.

If an incident like the Benghazi attack can so befuddle him, what would he do in a larger crisis?

The demented attacks on America’s embassy in Egypt and consulate in Libya, and Mitt Romney’s hasty and hyperbolic response to them, raises similar questions about the Republican presidential candidate’s fitness to govern. Romney’s condemnation of the Obama administration, at a time when American lives had been lost and its embassies were under siege, calls his judgment and ability to guide foreign policy into question.

Romney got his facts wrong. So, by the way, did a New Hampshire newspaper that, in a front-page editorial, repeated the false assertion that the embassy message apologized for the movie and the president apologizes for the United States. The latter charge, though pasted firmly in the Republican playbook, is a lie, one thoroughly debunked by fact-checking organizations and responsible media outlets. Obama has never apologized for America’s actions. Nor was the embassy’s Twitter message an apology.

Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration’s crisis management won’t lead to riots. He’s entitled to say what he wants. At the same time, Obama’s Republican opponent showed himself to have been in an unseemly rush to find fault while the crisis was still unfolding. When Obama remarked on what seems to be Romney’s “tendency to shoot first and aim later,” he was merely stating the obvious.

It’s shameful that the tragic events have been overshadowed by blatant politicking. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s rushed statement condemning Obama’s handling of the crisis has been widely repudiated, even by some Republicans, for being inaccurate and inappropriate in the heat of an international crisis.

3 Responses

I don’t think Romney’s continuing demonstrations of insensitivity, incompetence and general ignorance of what is involved in international relations, are going to entice the few ‘undecideds’ to jump onto what can only be described as the Republican manure wagon, and may just get people already on board, to uncover their noses, and jump off.

(full disclosure: the list was assembled by Americans United for Change, an Obama-friendly group funded by labor interests) :

“an obama-friendly group funded by labor interests.”

an obama-friendly group funded by labor interess??? add “so immersed in the tank for obama” and this story/editorial opinion might have an ounce of journalistic integrity.

allah forbid that romney – or anyone who is not a “president obama can do no wrong AND even if he ever did it isn’t obama’s fautl” robot – speak what i and many others on all sides of the aisle believe to be true.

full disclosure: this reply was written by a political cynic who is not registered with any party. i did not vote for obama in 2008. i did not vote for mccain in 2008. i did my first write-in vote ever: i voted for “none of the above.”